Imagine a scenario: A comedian delivers a sharp joke or a pointed remark that hits a nerve with a powerful leader. Perhaps it’s a critical cartoon or a controversial television show that stirs public debate.
In response, these offended leaders and their allies often accuse the creators and their employers of undermining moral standards and national pride. What follows is a swift state crackdown: authorities issue threats, apply financial pressure, and even suggest shutting down operations. The result is predictable: humorists scramble for legal advice, executives grow fearful, and everyone quickly understands that no negative or embarrassing content about the government or its supporters will be tolerated.
This scenario is all too familiar to citizens in countries like China, India, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela. These nations, governed by varying degrees of authoritarian rule, have consistently seen their comedians, broadcasters, journalists, and cartoonists silenced through various pressures.
Recently, President Trump’s threat to revoke broadcasting licenses from networks whose late-night hosts joke or comment at his expense has drawn the United States dangerously close to this group of nations. His strategy, involving lawsuits against media companies, cuts to public broadcasting, and threats to block mergers while favoring friendly outlets, aligns with a troubling global trend.
Image: President Trump, giving an ‘OK’ sign aboard Air Force One, has reportedly threatened to revoke licenses from networks featuring late-night hosts who mock him.
According to Jennifer McCoy, a political science professor at Georgia State University specializing in democratic decline, ‘Controlling information and media is one of the early and necessary steps of an authoritarian regime.’ She adds, ‘Then, repressing dissent and criticism, not just among the media, but among political opponents and citizens follows.’
It’s important to note that no free expression experts or organizations are equating Mr. Trump with the most severe violators of human rights globally. The most repressive authoritarian regimes have a history of murdering critics and imprisoning anyone perceived as a threat. Many dictators, upon seizing power, promptly shut down newspapers and took control of television networks.
However, the United States has traditionally stood as a strong advocate for free speech. The methods Mr. Trump has adopted, which imply that only opinions sanctioned by the president are legitimate and protected, place the country in uncomfortable alignment with less democratic nations.
The 2025 Democracy Report by the Swedish V-Dem Institute indicates a concerning decline in freedom of expression in America and 43 other countries, representing a quarter of the world’s nations. This figure has risen from 35 countries just a year prior, highlighting a worsening trend over the past decade, according to the institute.
Across both democratic and dictatorial states, individuals who use humor to voice criticism are increasingly becoming targets.
- In Iran, prosecutors recently brought morality charges against Zeinab Mousavi, a pioneering female stand-up comedian. The charges stemmed from a video where she incorporated explicit language into an ancient Persian poem. This marked at least the third time she faced police summons since creating her popular character, Empress of Kuzcoo, a satirical portrayal of an elderly, nose-peeking villager in a hijab.
- Last July in Turkey, four cartoonists were arrested for an image published in the satirical magazine LeMan. The caricature depicted Moses and Prophet Muhammad conversing peacefully in heaven while bullets flew between Jews and Muslims below. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced it as ‘a vile provocation,’ leading to one cartoonist being charged with ‘insulting the president.’
- India, another nation experiencing a decline in free expression, has seen even subtle jokes about local politicians become taboo. In March, comedian Kunal Kamra, known for his political humor, performed a song at a Mumbai club using the word ‘gaddar’ (traitor), seemingly directed at a local politician. This single act prompted the state’s chief minister to demand legal action, and government employees subsequently vandalized the club.
Image: Police officers stand outside Kunal Kamra’s studio in Mumbai, India, in March. The comedian faced legal threats following one of his performances.
Helmut K. Anheier, a sociology professor at the Hertie School in Berlin, notes that the strategy of attacking free expression and punishing elites for populist political gain was first described by sociologist Antonio Gramsci during his imprisonment by Italian Fascists in the 1920s.
Anheier explains that for many demagogues, both historically and in the present, the primary objective is ‘to achieve cultural and political dominance,’ or as other scholars describe it, to redefine public perception of ‘common sense.’
Compelling independent institutions to conform is a crucial component of this strategy, aiming to impose a new narrative and glorify a strongman leader, often at the cost of civil liberties.
As Gramsci famously wrote around 1930 from his prison cell: ‘The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.’
Today, China stands as a prime example of successful expression management. While control levels have varied over the years, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, Beijing has significantly tightened its grip, transforming news outlets, films, comedy, and social media into meticulously monitored channels for government-approved messages.
During a 2016 tour of Chinese media outlets, Mr. Xi unequivocally stated that ‘media sponsored by the party and government’ – encompassing almost all major media in China – ‘should serve as propaganda platforms for the party and government.’
Subsequently, investigative journalists, who once scrutinized government abuses and corruption even while working for state-controlled media, have virtually disappeared. This mirrors a pattern seen in other countries like Hungary and Russia, where loyalists have been placed in charge of previously independent publications.
Additionally, authorities have intensified their oversight of movies and books, placing them directly under the Communist Party’s propaganda department. Censors diligently monitor content not just for political sensitivities, but also for anything that deviates from the party’s core priorities.
The consequences for defiance can be severe. In 2020, Hong Kong’s public broadcaster aired an episode of ‘Headliner,’ its well-known satire program, implying that police were stockpiling masks during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic. Despite the show’s long history of satire since 1989, it was cancelled months after that single episode.
Image: The set of ‘Headliner’ at Radio Television Hong Kong in 2020. The satirical show was later pulled from the air after an episode about coronavirus masks.
In 2023, a Beijing stand-up comedian faced accusations of insulting the Chinese military with a joke about stray dogs. This resulted in a hefty $2 million fine imposed on the comedy studio where he performed. Furthermore, police in northern China, far from the performance venue, detained a woman who had publicly defended the comedian online.
Meanwhile, in the United States, satire and criticism — frequently involving pointed insults and scrutiny of potential corruption within the Trump family — continue to reach broad audiences through various media channels.
However, experts are observing concerning signs of authoritarianism as Mr. Trump threatens broadcasters’ licenses and initiates lawsuits against academic institutions and prominent newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
Trump’s threats to revoke licenses came after ABC indefinitely pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show, reportedly under pressure from FCC chairman Brendan Carr. Carr had criticized Kimmel for remarks about Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, suggesting Trump supporters were trying to distance themselves from the perpetrator. Trump then publicly stated that merely canceling the show might not be sufficient.
These threats of regulatory strong-arming bring to mind figures like Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, who used his dual role as a political leader and media magnate to blacklist critics and force executives to suppress dissent. Venezuelans might recall Hugo Chávez’s actions of revoking radio licenses and compelling TV networks to air his populist speeches. Similarly, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, a figure admired by the Trumpist right, employed tax policies to weaken and harass major media organizations.
For Russia scholars, Mr. Trump’s stance on late-night comedians draws a stark parallel to Vladimir V. Putin’s early approach to media during his rise to power in Moscow.
During that period, a satirical TV program called ‘Kukly’ featured oversized, somewhat grotesque puppets mocking political figures and current events, including the Chechnya war and President Boris N. Yeltsin’s drinking habits. In the 1990s, as post-Soviet Russia aimed to project a democratic image, the show was largely tolerated, even by the Kremlin.
However, everything shifted with Putin’s ascent. Initially through harassment, and then by a complete takeover by the state oil monopoly, he transformed the independent network airing ‘Kukly’ into a compliant state-controlled outlet. ‘Kukly’ was, of course, gone.
Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political science professor and expert on dictatorships, observed: ‘In general, few authoritarian leaders have a sense of humor and even fewer can laugh at themselves.’ He added that Putin was reportedly ‘enraged’ by his portrayal as an ‘evil dwarf.’
Image: The El Capitan theater in Los Angeles, site of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ on Thursday. ABC has indefinitely suspended Kimmel’s show.
It appears Mr. Trump might be taking these jokes quite personally, or perhaps he’s harnessing the indignation of his political supporters.
‘They give me only bad publicity,’ Mr. Trump once remarked about major news networks.
In response, many Russians have offered a cautionary message to America: ‘Beware what comes next.’ Viktor Shenderovich, the head writer for ‘Kukly,’ was eventually forced to leave Russia due to persistent government harassment and credible death threats.
Numerous other individuals involved with the satirical program also sought refuge outside their home country, fearing for their safety.